So many idiot athletes and coaches who, for generations now, believe doping improves performances, whose own experiences would prove that to them - and antidoping experts who believe the same on the evidence available to them, that doping gives advantage. All wrong - according to you. And this from someone with no experience of doping, who knows no athletes who have doped and who has never used it himself. Convictions formed without experience and completely disregarding the views of those who do have such experience. I don't think there could be a more compelling definition of stupidity.
My strongest conviction is that the estimated 98-99% ignorance leaves plenty of room and fertile ground and solid foundation to invent and propogate myths, as they contradictory knowledge is virtually non-existent. You are simply one of many spokesmen speculating what can be projected from the solid basis of 98-99% ignorance. This nearly 100 percent magnitude of ignorance explains why there are so many different, often contradictory, personal pet hypotheses of what the alleged relation of doping and best performances looks like.
I note that your initial set of "uncomfortable facts" didn't include any facts at all coming from "athletes and coaches" "for generations", nor their beliefs, nor their documented experiences. Maybe they are right or wrong, but they aren't the ones here, or anywhere, telling us about their proven experiences -- these alleged experiences only come from anonymous nobodies like you "with no experience of doping, who knows no athletes who have doped and who has never used it himself".
Instead, your "uncomfortable facts (sic)" you chose to open with: a speculative "estimate" from a lawyer (Richard Armstrong) about "power events" from the 1988 Seoul Olympics; summary statistics from WADA lab results essentially conceding 98-99% ignorance regarding the doping status of those tested, not to mention 100% ignorance of all of the remaining athletes never tested; a reference to a self-reported undetectably unreliable survey from one event in 2011, before any deterrent impacts of the ABP, and before any changes arising from the Diack/Russian scandal; a quote from another lawyer (David Howman); a quote from Economics major/MBA/financial consultant/management consultant (Renee Anne Shirley); a meaningless statement that doping is present generally everywhere; and then your own personal but baseless conjecture about the state of mind of every athlete.
None of these sources or facts seem to be qualified to speak on behalf of any athletes and coaches for generations. Hard for me to judge if they are right or wrong if they themselves have never expressed their actual experience.
I have given examples as well as data from different sources who have had experience in dealing with and investigating doping. You don't have that experience. Also, although actual dopers aren't quoted - although I could refer to some like Jose Canseco and track athletes who have described the undoubted benefits they experienced, the sheer prevalence of doping over the last decades with the inability of antidoping to stop or even curb it is the most telling feature. No practice that promises results could continue and be as pervasive as it is amongst so many athletes if it didn't so deliver. Your position rests on maintaining generations of coaches, trainers, physicians and athletes are dupes; gullible fools. Yet they have the experience of doping and you don't. Flat-earthing comes in various forms; yours is but one of them.
The headline of the thread is also in the present tense, and the last time I checked my calendar, it was 2022, ie. 26 years after the 1996 Summer Olympics.
The answer to the present tense question is "no, not everyone".
Even the worst estimates suggest it is just a minority.
no way are they clean.laura is looking more and more like a man,and teenage girls cant run sub 1.56.The only teens i can think of that ran that fast were caster semenya,and pamela jelimo.The very best russian women struggled to run as fast as keely and athing.Even mary moraa(whom everybody says is full throttle doping)is yet to run sub 1.56.I doubt a teenage girl could even break 2 minutes,clean.
I have given examples as well as data from different sources who have had experience in dealing with and investigating doping. You don't have that experience. Also, although actual dopers aren't quoted - although I could refer to some like Jose Canseco and track athletes who have described the undoubted benefits they experienced, the sheer prevalence of doping over the last decades with the inability of antidoping to stop or even curb it is the most telling feature. No practice that promises results could continue and be as pervasive as it is amongst so many athletes if it didn't so deliver. Your position rests on maintaining generations of coaches, trainers, physicians and athletes are dupes; gullible fools. Yet they have the experience of doping and you don't. Flat-earthing comes in various forms; yours is but one of them.
You have given next to nothing that is not your imagination, or someone else's.
My position is that your beliefs are not rooted in knowledge, but strongly founded in ignorance. This is easily falsifiable, by sharing knowledge, but you simply lack the knowledge to do so. Pretending I have no relevant experience will not create the knowledge you lack.
It is notably curious that despite the alleged "sheer prevalence of doping over the last decades with the inability of antidoping to stop or even curb it" your best example of a track athlete's doping experience appears to be Jose Canseco and some unnamed "track athletes". I did not find any of Jose Conseco's results at the World Athletics website. What is his marathon PB?
While you presume to know the collective experiences of coaches and athletes which they have never shared, you fail to bring any knowledge that their experiences would support your expressed but baseless beliefs.
You assert another ignorant belief that a practice cannot be pervasive if it doesn't deliver, but in reality, practices rooted in mythology can be pervasive for millennia on the basis of belief alone.
I have given examples as well as data from different sources who have had experience in dealing with and investigating doping. You don't have that experience. Also, although actual dopers aren't quoted - although I could refer to some like Jose Canseco and track athletes who have described the undoubted benefits they experienced, the sheer prevalence of doping over the last decades with the inability of antidoping to stop or even curb it is the most telling feature. No practice that promises results could continue and be as pervasive as it is amongst so many athletes if it didn't so deliver. Your position rests on maintaining generations of coaches, trainers, physicians and athletes are dupes; gullible fools. Yet they have the experience of doping and you don't. Flat-earthing comes in various forms; yours is but one of them.
You have given next to nothing that is not your imagination, or someone else's.
My position is that your beliefs are not rooted in knowledge, but strongly founded in ignorance. This is easily falsifiable, by sharing knowledge, but you simply lack the knowledge to do so. Pretending I have no relevant experience will not create the knowledge you lack.
It is notably curious that despite the alleged "sheer prevalence of doping over the last decades with the inability of antidoping to stop or even curb it" your best example of a track athlete's doping experience appears to be Jose Canseco and some unnamed "track athletes". I did not find any of Jose Conseco's results at the World Athletics website. What is his marathon PB?
While you presume to know the collective experiences of coaches and athletes which they have never shared, you fail to bring any knowledge that their experiences would support your expressed but baseless beliefs.
You assert another ignorant belief that a practice cannot be pervasive if it doesn't deliver, but in reality, practices rooted in mythology can be pervasive for millennia on the basis of belief alone.
Since you clearly disregard anyone who has any kind of experience with doping - which includes the thousands of athletes who have doped - what is your experience of doping that enables you to dismiss theirs? You are like one of those quaint experts on the arts of marriage who has never been married. I tend to listen to those who speak from experience. You prefer to correct them from your position of no such experience. We generally call such a person a fool.
Since you clearly disregard anyone who has any kind of experience with doping - which includes the thousands of athletes who have doped - what is your experience of doping that enables you to dismiss theirs? You are like one of those quaint experts on the arts of marriage who has never been married. I tend to listen to those who speak from experience. You prefer to correct them from your position of no such experience. We generally call such a person a fool.
You keep dancing around your own failures. You say athletes and coaches have the experience, but can only give us quotes and experiences, not from any coaches or athletes, but from lawyers and management/financial consultants. I have listened to one famous coach here who says that the best results can be achieved without doping by extended altitude training. Many anonymous nobodies with no experience disagree with him -- I guess you would call all of them fools.
You are also gravely mistaken. I do not disregard or dismiss experts with experience, but regard their opinions presented without any supporting data as baseless beliefs. This is especially the case when they say the best experts say that their knowledge and data is limited to 1-2%.
If one day more data is made public, I will listen to the data. But whatever you want to call me will not produce this supporting data.
I think the argument that everyone who is good is doping is flawed and that everyone at a world class level must be cheating is over the top. I made a massive jump from college to the professional scene that took me from middle of the pack at the top level college track to one of the top guys in the US, at the time. While I didn’t quite make any world teams I live/lived with, and spend/spent a lot of time with guys who are always in the discussion for medals on the world stage. A couple Americans, but mostly guys from around the world. While I could never 100% guarantee any of them aren’t doping, because I’d have to spend 24/7 with them, I can say with strong resolve that I think it’s highly unlikely they are doping. There certainly are guys who are doping on the world stage, but I think this is perpetuated by the belief everyone is doping and so guys who wouldn’t otherwise be in the discussion are, because they believe their competition must be. This tends to be a trait from clear narcissists, who think that they must be equals or better than everyone and that the only way anyone is better is because they’re dirty. This is all to say that not everyone who is good is dirty, but it certainly puts you at a greater chance of being dirty.
Since you clearly disregard anyone who has any kind of experience with doping - which includes the thousands of athletes who have doped - what is your experience of doping that enables you to dismiss theirs? You are like one of those quaint experts on the arts of marriage who has never been married. I tend to listen to those who speak from experience. You prefer to correct them from your position of no such experience. We generally call such a person a fool.
You keep dancing around your own failures. You say athletes and coaches have the experience, but can only give us quotes and experiences, not from any coaches or athletes, but from lawyers and management/financial consultants. I have listened to one famous coach here who says that the best results can be achieved without doping by extended altitude training. Many anonymous nobodies with no experience disagree with him -- I guess you would call all of them fools.
You are also gravely mistaken. I do not disregard or dismiss experts with experience, but regard their opinions presented without any supporting data as baseless beliefs. This is especially the case when they say the best experts say that their knowledge and data is limited to 1-2%.
If one day more data is made public, I will listen to the data. But whatever you want to call me will not produce this supporting data.
The process of reasoning that you can't follow is that quotes on the benefits of doping aren't needed from coaches and athletes when the numbers who have doped for decades speak for themselves.
Your supposition that the top athletes around you aren't likely to be doping are contrary to official estimates and confidential athlete surveys. These have indicated that almost one in two championship level athletes are doping.
The process of reasoning that you can't follow is that quotes on the benefits of doping aren't needed from coaches and athletes when the numbers who have doped for decades speak for themselves.
I can follow the reasoning -- it is just doesn't rise to the level of knowledge with basis. That's why I regard it as mythology and belief.
You presume to speak on behalf of the experiences of coaches and athletes, yet you haven't shared the experiences of any -- nor have they. This seems to be why the only athlete you can name is Jose Canseco.
You speak of numbers, but the numbers you give range from 1%-80%. If anything, as you cannot provide any numbers of performance, it can only speak to widespread belief.
By your own standard, since you have no real experience of your own, you would call yourself a stupid fool. I am not so gullible as to be persuaded by the reasoning of such a self-described fool, on the basis of nothing.
The process of reasoning that you can't follow is that quotes on the benefits of doping aren't needed from coaches and athletes when the numbers who have doped for decades speak for themselves.
I can follow the reasoning -- it is just doesn't rise to the level of knowledge with basis. That's why I regard it as mythology and belief.
You presume to speak on behalf of the experiences of coaches and athletes, yet you haven't shared the experiences of any -- nor have they. This seems to be why the only athlete you can name is Jose Canseco.
You speak of numbers, but the numbers you give range from 1%-80%. If anything, as you cannot provide any numbers of performance, it can only speak to widespread belief.
By your own standard, since you have no real experience of your own, you would call yourself a stupid fool. I am not so gullible as to be persuaded by the reasoning of such a self-described fool, on the basis of nothing.
I don't speak on behalf of the thousands of athletes who have doped, you moron - the fact they dope speaks for itself. Further, no one except a doping denier thinks the numbers caught - 1-2% - are all who dope. WADA acknowledges it can't catch all the dopers and has estimated its prevalence as being as high as 40%. To avoid the facts, as you do, requires that you turn stupidity into a high art.
I don't speak on behalf of the thousands of athletes who have doped, you moron - the fact they dope speaks for itself. Further, no one except a doping denier thinks the numbers caught - 1-2% - are all who dope. WADA acknowledges it can't catch all the dopers and has estimated its prevalence as being as high as 40%. To avoid the facts, as you do, requires that you turn stupidity into a high art.
Of course you don't and can't speak on behalf of them, because you do not possess their knowledge -- you just presume to know the results of their experiences which they have not shared, and draw the conclusions you want based on your presumptions.
The fact that so many dope does indeed speak for itself -- it speaks to the widespread belief among athletes and coaches, as well as personal insecurities and lack of self-belief that drive them to seek external support.
You said the sheer prevalence numbers speak for itself but from all your quotes, you leave it up to me to pick the sheer number between 1% and 80% -- these are the best numbers that come from your "experts" with all of their experience in anti-doping. This is a wide range to sheer numbers from, and a prevalence value of 5-10% would say something quite different than 40-45% which is again quite different than 75%-80%. Contrary to your wish to want to label me as a denier, I agree with you and all of your "experts" and all of their quotes that doping prevalence is likely some number greater than 1% and less than 80%. It is this wide range of ignorance of how many, and who, that leaves fertile ground for myth building and propagation.
All of these prevalence numbers though don't come from coaches and athletes. These come from lawyers and scientists with, like you and me, no real experience doping elite athletes and improving national and world class performance. So whatever these sheered prevalence figures say when they speak for themselves, they do not speak on behalf of experiences of coaches and athletes.